Causal Criteria in Medical and Biological Disciplines: History, Essence, and Radiation Aspects. Report 4, Part 1: The Post-Hill Criteria and Ecolgoical Criteria

• Published in: Biology bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 2022, Vol.49 (12), p.2423-2466
• Main Authors: Koterov, A. N., Ushenkova, L. N.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation; Biochemistry; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Causality; Cell Biology; Ecology; Epidemiology; Forensic science; Hypotheses; Life Sciences; Medical research; Methodology of Scientific Search; Public health; Radiation; Zoology
• ISSN: 1062-3590; 1608-3059
• DOI: 10.1134/S1062359022120068

Part 1 of Report 4 is focused on the development and modifications of causal criteria after A.B. Hill (1965). Criteria from B. MacMahon et al. (1970–1996), regarded as the first textbook for modern epidemiology, were considered, and it was found that the named researchers did not offer anything new despite the frequent mention of this source in relation to the theme. A similar situation emerged with the criteria of M. Susser: the three obligatory points of this author, “Association” (or “Probability” of causality), “Time order,” and “Direction of effect,” are trivial, and two more special criteria, which are the development of “Popperian Epidemiology,” i.e., “Surviability” of the hypothesis when it is tested by different methods (included in the refinement in Hill’s criterion “Consistency of association”) and “Predictive performance” of the hypothesis are more theoretical and hardly applicable for the practice of epidemiology and public health. The same restrictions apply to the similar “Popperian” criteria of D.L. Weed, “Predictability” and “Testability” of the causal hypothesis. Although the universal postulates of A.S. Evans for infectious and noninfectious pathologies can be considered exhaustive, they are not used either in epidemiology or in any other discipline practice, except for the field of infectious pathologies, which is probably explained by the complication of the ten-point complex. The little-known criteria of P. Cole (1997) for medical and forensic practice are the most important. The three parts of Hill’s criterion-based approaches are important in that they go from a single epidemiological study through a cycle of studies (coupled with the integration of data from other biomedical disciplines) to re-base Hill’s criteria for assessing the individual causality of an effect. These constructs complement the earlier guidance from R.E. Gots (1986) on establishing probabilistic personal causation. The collection of causal criteria and the guidelines for environmental disciplines (ecology of biota, human ecoepidemiology, and human ecotoxicology) were considered. The total dominance of inductive causal criteria, both initial and in modifications and with additions, was revealed for an apparently complete base of sources (1979–2020). Adaptations of all known causal schemes based on guidelines have been found, from Henle–Koch postulates to Hill and Susser, including in the international programs and practice of the U.S. Environmental Protection Age